Artist genetically engineers mice with the DNA of Elvis Presley

The King is dead -- long live the genetically-engineered mouse version of the King.

As a pop comeback, it's certainly among the more unusual. Royal College of Art graduate student Koby Barhad's project All That I Am features the concept of genetically-engineered mice with DNA taken from the hair of Elvis Presley. The aim is to explore a range of philosophical and ethical issues.

While it may sound far-fetched, it really only required taking advantage of three online services which anyone can use. First, eBay, where a sample of Elvis' hair was bought for the the princely sum of $22 (£14.21). Then, Barhad researched two companies offering genetic services online -- Genetrack Biolabs, who can sequence the DNA from the hair sample, and inGenious Targeting Laboratory, who can produce transgenic cloned mice with specifically tailored genetics to order. The result is what Barhad would call an "Elvis mouse model" -- a mouse with the genetic makeup of the King of Rock 'n' Roll.

Advertisement

It doesn't end there, though. Barhad studied numerous experiments conducted on mice over the past hundred years, and devised a series of cages for them to live in that would hopefully simulate key parts of Elvis Presley's life. By subjecting the mice to similar experiences, they might become closer to Elvis through not just nature but also nurture.

To model the close relationship Elvis had with his mother, the mouse is given a companion in one cage; he's subjected to darkness and cold in another to simulate a childhood of poverty in Tupelo. In another, there's a distorted mirror to give a false sense of self-importance -- representing the effects of fame. Then there's the cage where every curious action is rewarded with extra food and toys to the extent that the home itself generates unease, like Graceland. And, finally, the last few years of his life take the form of a treadmill on a slope -- the Elvis mouse works itself to the point it falls off, symbolising death.

Read next

However, Barhad hasn't commissioned the mice to be bred yet. He's just shown that it's a lot easier than you might think to create mice clones of humans, even celebrities.

Barhad told Wired.co.uk why he went to all this effort to create such a weird concept:

Advertisement

Why Elvis? Why mice?

I started the project with procuring hairs of Elvis, Princes Diana and JFK -- all are cultural heroes that died before their time. That way they were made a myth, glorified to the point where they became a utopian model. From these three, Elvis is the ultimate symbol of the amount of (sometime ridiculous) effort we put, as a society, in keeping those models alive.

As for the mouse -- in the last two centuries the mouse has been used as a human model in science. As a scientific symbol for man. Apparently we have an extraordinary number of identical genes that make it perfect for testing ourselves. From psychology to physiology it was always tested on mice first.

What was the inspiration for combining the elements of this experiment -- the mouse testing equipment, the Elvis hair and online genetic services?

Advertisement

I've always been fascinated with humanity's eternal need to quantify and define life. Be it biology or physics, philosophy or biography, psychology or fiction -- from Frankenstein to the "god particle". In my research I came across a private lab service that offers "mice" that are "genetically modified for your needs". From that point I was just wondering whose behavioural mice model I would like to design. That, of course, led me to eBay, the DNA sequencing labs and to historical and contemporary behaviouristic science.

Would you argue that you have the right to use an individual's DNA for cloning (of a sort) just because you've got one of his hairs? I won't argue that, as I'm not an expert in law and ethics. Instead, I'm raising those questions so that we, as the general public, would get a better understanding of the issues that we'll soon have to deal with.

In Australia, for example, they're starting an experimental programme that chooses athletes by their DNA. At

Oxford Nanopore they are working on a USB stick that can sequence your DNA. There's a whole industry of private labs that no one monitors and you can basically use anyone's DNA to know more about their potential. Just the other week I came across an amazing article on Madonna's new "DNA team" that "sterilises her dressing room".

Is it difficult getting the genetic company to agree to create Elvis mice models/clones? There is a difference between a research lab that has to follow strict ethical codes and good reasoning, and a private lab that offers its technical services and expertise to anyone that can pay.

As the project has just started we did a sample test with one of the scientist's hairs to show that it was possible, and -- more important and surprising to me -- easy as any children's DIY science kit.

How did you quantify Elvis' life? Is there not a danger that you are choosing the moments which are defined as important to him as a celebrity, but not as a person? For me that is where some of the most interesting philosophical questions come from. A model is something that should reflect a certain reality. Our whole existence and perception is based on models. A biography is never the "true story" of someone, and so is an autobiography. Together they provide us a bigger perspective from which we could build our own models of this certain reality. So no matter what or how we will create this "living model" it will never be accurate -- and that is the paradox. Do we build those models to develop ourselves, or do we build them to become the reality we model?

Is this unethical?

Advertisement

As soon as purebred cats are outlawed I will stop working on this project. But seriously -- I think that the distance between producing purebred animals like dogs and cats and an "Elvis mouse" is unfortunately not too far. Across approximately 70 years of experiments Dmitry K. Belyaev showed how we, by selection, made a domestic dog out of an aggressive wild fox. I think that the only difference with making genetically modified pets to fill some human need -- be it loneliness, compassion, social class or pure entertainment -- is the time it takes.